In a unanimous decision handed down on Feb. 22, 2023, the Supreme Court reinforced one of the Bankruptcy Code’s important creditor protections. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, No. 21-908, 598 U.S. ___ (2023), the Court confirmed, in an opinion authored by Justice Barrett, that the Bankruptcy Code bars the discharge by individual debtors of debts fraudulently obtained by the debtor’s agent or business partner.

In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, the Supreme Court of the United States resolved confusion in the lower courts over the scope and application of 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(2)(A), which prohibits debtors from discharging debt through bankruptcy when such debt was obtained as a result of fraudulent actions.

After a pause in 2022, there has been much talk of the continuation, or resumption, of a wave of retail bankruptcy cases as we begin 2023. 2022 was highlighted by Revlon’s filing (discussed here: Revlon May Signal Another Wave of Retail Bankruptcies | Retail & Consumer Products Law Observer (retailconsumerproductslaw.com)).

This week, the United States Supreme Court issued its opinion in Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, unanimously holding that a debtor cannot discharge a debt obtained by fraud even if the debtor himself/herself did not personally commit the fraud.

The U.S. Supreme Court issues its first-ever opinion—of any type—on August 3, 1791. [Fn. 1] But it does not address a bankruptcy question for quite some time thereafter. In fact, the first U.S. law on the subject of bankruptcy did not exist until the Bankruptcy Act of 1800.

First Bankruptcy Opinion

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court held that § 523(a)(2)(A) of the Bankruptcy Code precludes a debtor from discharging a debt obtained by fraud, regardless of the debtor’s own culpability. In Bartenwerfer v. Buckley, issued February 22, the Court concluded that “§ 523(a)(2)(A) turns on how the money was obtained, not who committed fraud to obtain it.”

Here’s a hard-knocks rule:

• When you can’t or won’t explain the true reason for taking a position in negotiations or litigation, distrust and suspicion of the worst-possible motives will follow.

An Exhibit A for this rule is an opinion issued February 9, 2023, in In re Heaven’s Landing, LLC, Case No. 20-21350, Northern Georgia Bankruptcy Court (Doc. 145).

Here are illustrative statements from that opinion:

In In re LTL Management, LLC, No. 22-2003 (Jan. 30, 2023), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit had occasion to consider whether an entity that was created solely to house liabilities and file for bankruptcy could, in fact, file for bankruptcy where another entity was contractually obligated to pay those liabilities. The Court dismissed the bankruptcy petition, reasoning that this contractual obligation meant the former entity was not in financial distress and thus could not avail itself of the bankruptcy process.

On January 19, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Virginia entered an order sanctioning a collections law firm for violating the bankruptcy discharge injunction. The court in Skaggs v. Gooch (In re Skaggs) awarded the debtor $25,000 in attorneys’ fees based on a letter he received concerning a discharged debt.

Last month, the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Massachusetts denied confirmation of a cannabis company employee’s Chapter 13 plan and dismissed his bankruptcy case. The employee, Scott H. Blumsack (the “Debtor”), is a general manager who is licensed in Massachusetts to work for Society Cannabis Co., a Massachusetts-licensed retailer, wholesaler, and producer of cannabis products.